Understanding the legal procedures when challenging council tax can often feel overwhelming. This post aims to demystify the journey, from an initial liability hearing to the intricacies of a judicial review, by walking through the typical steps and crucial legal principles that every citizen should be aware of. For PeaceKeepers, empowering you with this knowledge is paramount.
The Journey of a Council Tax Challenge: From Summons to Rehearing
The process often begins with a summons, leading to a hearing where a liability order might be made. In one instance, a bulk listing involved 2,536 people. Initially, magistrates were reluctant to hear arguments, and it was admitted that the council hadn’t even submitted a detailed breakdown of their costs.
Following such a hearing, if procedural errors or unlawful actions are identified, an application can be made to declare the order void. In a notable case from 2023, a district judge in the magistrates’ court (DJ Clark) heard such a void order application. The hearing was brief, lasting less than five minutes, with Liverpool City Council representatives observing from the public gallery, and the order was indeed voided. When an order is voided, the council has the option to have the case reheard by a different judge. This rehearing subsequently took place, for example, before District Judge Healey around August 20th, with the judgment handed down on September 23rd.
Perfected Judgments: Why a Spoken Order Isn’t Enough
It’s crucial to understand the nature of judgments. Many judgments, especially initial ones, are made “extempore” – meaning on the spur of the moment based on the information immediately available. An extempore judgment, even if delivered verbally in court, remains within the judge’s authority to change until it is “perfected.” Perfection typically involves the judgment being written down, signed, and formally recorded. Councils are incorrect to assert that merely hearing a judgment in court makes it enforceable; without a perfected judgment, council tax cannot be lawfully enforced.
The judgment handed down on September 23rd, for instance, was a written judgment, reportedly a first for a council tax matter from a magistrates’ court. A judgment must not only be spoken but also recorded. The Magistrates’ Court Rules 1981, specifically rule 66B, stipulate the information that must be in the court record, crucially including the name of the judge(s) who made the order. If it’s lay magistrates, the legal advisor’s name must also be present. Without these names, regardless of any stamp or signature on a memorandum or extract, there is effectively no valid order of the court. Even guidance issued by HMCTS, and previously under the JCS, makes it clear that a judgment must be spoken and recorded.
The Path to Judicial Review: Section 111 and Beyond
If one believes a legal error has occurred, one option is to apply under Section 111 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1981 for the magistrates to “state a case” for the opinion of the High Court. This asks the judge to prepare a formal document outlining the facts and points of law for the High Court to review. Following the September 23rd judgment, such a Section 111 application was made to District Judge Healey. He subsequently issued a certificate of refusal.
Upon receiving a certificate of refusal, or if no satisfactory case is stated, the next step can be an application for judicial review. This application is initially considered “on papers” by a single High Court judge. In the example case, this was Judge Oleton. It’s important to note that when the judicial review application was first filed, the applicant was not aware that the certificate of refusal had been issued; this only came to light when the council, as an interested party, responded to the served judicial review papers. Upon receiving evidence (forwarded emails from the council showing it was sent), the applicant conceded this particular point regarding the refusal certificate, acknowledging a potential personal error like deleting the email or it going to spam.
Grounds for Refusal & The Oral Hearing: Scrutinizing the Decision
Judge Oleton, after reviewing the papers, refused permission for judicial review based on four grounds:
- Standing: Whether the claimant (e.g., PeaceKeepers) had a legitimate right to bring the case.
- Delay: Whether the application was made promptly and within the required time limits.
- Alternative Remedy: Whether there was another legal route the claimant should have taken first (e.g., Valuation Tribunal).
- Lack of Perceptible Merit: Whether the other grounds of challenge were substantial enough to warrant a full hearing.
Following a refusal “on papers,” an applicant has seven days to apply for an in-person oral hearing to have these grounds of refusal reviewed. This review was conducted by Dame Hill, whose task was to assess whether Judge Oleton’s reasons for refusal were correct.
Deconstructing “Standing”: Who Can Bring a Claim?
The issue of “standing” questions whether the right party has brought the claim. The argument often made by councils is that an organization like PeaceKeepers has no direct interest in an individual’s personal tax affairs. However, the argument in response is that the challenge is not about personal tax liability per se, but about systemic and procedural unlawfulness affecting many council taxpayers and raising issues of fundamental public importance concerning the Rule of Law and due process.
Courts have adopted a more liberal approach to standing in public interest cases, moving from a strict rights-based test to an interest-based one. This ensures unlawful executive or judicial actions don’t escape scrutiny simply because no single individual has a unique private grievance. Organizations like PeaceKeepers or the Good Law Project can act as public intervenors. The court also has a duty, under CPR 19.2.2A and Section 49(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, to add or substitute parties to ensure matters are dealt with fairly and justly, preventing good claims from being thrown out simply because the “wrong” party initiated them. In the discussed hearing, Mr. Horn had offered to be joined or substituted as a claimant, and the council raised no objections to this.
Tackling “Delay”: Understanding the Timelines (CPR 54.5.1)
A claim for judicial review must be filed “promptly” and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose (CPR 54.5.1). The 3-month period is a maximum, and promptness is a separate requirement. The clock for the three months starts from the decision being challenged (e.g., the judgment of September 23rd). In the example, the application was submitted to the court on December 20th, well within three months. Any delay in the court issuing the claim after it’s been filed is not attributable to the claimant. Furthermore, the time consumed by mandatory preliminary steps, such as the 21-day period to apply for a statement of case and the subsequent 21-day period for the court to respond (a minimum of 42 days), significantly reduces the practical time available within the three-month window to prepare the judicial review. The council’s barrister eventually conceded that the claim was filed within the 3-month limit.
“Alternative Remedy”: Is the Valuation Tribunal Always the Answer?
Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. Judge Oleton suggested the Valuation Tribunal (VT) was an alternative remedy. However, the VT’s jurisdiction is typically limited to disputes concerning whether a dwelling is chargeable, who is liable, or calculation errors by the council (Regulation 57 of relevant council tax regulations). It does not have jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of an Act of Parliament (like the Local Government Finance Act) or fundamental breaches of due process and constitutional principles. Case law (e.g., Owen, Oyen, and Keren) supports the view that challenges to the lawfulness of conduct and constitutional matters are properly brought before the High Court via judicial review.
The Core Arguments: Challenging Unlawful Acts
Beyond the procedural hurdles, the substantive grounds for the judicial review are critical. These can include:
- Open Justice Breaches: Limiting public access to courtrooms (e.g., not using available empty seats beyond the public gallery) or denying remote viewing via CVP links without good reason.
- Recording Prohibition: Denying requests to record proceedings. While Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 grants judges discretion, the open justice principle requires a good reason for refusal, especially for educational purposes or personal record for appeal.
- Unlawful “Demand Notices”: Councils issuing “bills” instead of “demand notices” as specified by statute. The Powys judgment states that statutory powers must be used strictly in accordance with the power granted. If an Act says “demand notice,” that is what must be issued.
- Defective Summons: Arising from the alleged unlawful delegation of judicial functions (e.g., under the 2020 rules for council tax). Judicial decisions cannot typically be delegated.
- Cost Irregularities: Magistrates have a statutory and common law duty to determine and grant reasonable costs. Simply zeroing costs or rubber-stamping inflated council claims without proper scrutiny is unlawful.
- Failure to Give a Reasoned Judgment: While not every argument needs addressing, key issues and arguments raised by parties (including the council’s own arguments) must be dealt with in a judgment. The council themselves conceded that District Judge Healey did not adequately address their arguments about the Valuation Tribunal.
- Constitutional Breaches: Systemic failures that undermine the rule of law and due process.
The journey to ensure public bodies and courts act lawfully can be complex. However, understanding the procedures and the principles underpinning them is the first step towards holding power to account.
True sovereignty isn’t given; it’s understood and defended. Our free online course is designed to give you the essential knowledge to stand firm and protect your rights. Take the next step at https://peacekeepers.org.uk/enrol/